Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"SteveB" wrote:
]

So, is that the same as going to a library, checking out a book, copying it,
and returning the book. I mean, they have the book back, don't they?


But the author loses out on royalty if you bought the book. Since you
took the time and effort to copy the book, you must want to keep a copy
and that is theft (okay technically copyright violation..)

No technically about it.


It is theft of intellectal property.

Dan Espen wrote in
:

writes:

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 17:40:06 GMT, Dan Espen
wrote:

writes:

On 26 Jan 2008 00:09:44 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

"SteveB" wrote in

Nice comparison. I like that.

Steve

it's not even a "comparison".

You liberals sure have a sense of entitlement! What a bunch of
rationalizing crooks.

Am I reading this right?
Sure looks like you just labeled Jim Yanik as a liberal.
If so, that's absurd. Look around.

There sure are a lot of ethically challenged people in this
group. Did you know that judging people as a group is the
definition of prejudice?

Maybe you haven't been paying attention to what Jim Yanik has been
posting for a very long time here. I have listened to "Yanik the
panic" for years as he talked about entitlements, and people who
don't want to pay their own way. He attributes those things to
liberals. I just applied his own views to him. Clearly he's a
liberal. He has told us how to identify liberals, and that's what
I did. He's obviously way to the left of Hillary Clinton.

Jim can speak for himself, but Google gave me a different picture.

It's still prejudice.


well,I guess it depends on the meaning of "liberal".
In today's world,it means "socialist" ,"progressive",or Communist.

Today's "liberal" is a statist.
Everything belongs to or is subject to the State.

I don't believe I fit that definition.

But,I don't care WHAT he labels me.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:

well,I guess it depends on the meaning of "liberal".
In today's world,it means "socialist" ,"progressive",or Communist.

Two out of three wrong.

Today's "liberal" is a statist.

Absurdly *backwards*.

Everything belongs to or is subject to the State.

Excessive confusion seems to be the root cause of
a lot of what you say, and this is not exception.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:20:07 -0800, jJim McLaughlin
wrote:

It is theft of intellectal property.

Isn't that what the writer's strike is about? Their intellectual
writings being distributed by holly wood...no compensation.

Same with movies/software - not being paid for.

China is the worst for theft ...no regards for ownership, imo.

Oren
--

(Floyd L. Davidson) writes:

Jim Yanik wrote:

well,I guess it depends on the meaning of "liberal".
In today's world,it means "socialist" ,"progressive",or Communist.

Two out of three wrong.

Today's "liberal" is a statist.

Absurdly *backwards*.

Yes, it seems so:

statism:

state intervention in personal, social or economic matters

At least our current crop of conservatives seem to fit
this description quite well.

Everything belongs to or is subject to the State.

Excessive confusion seems to be the root cause of
a lot of what you say, and this is not exception.

Liberal:

# broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness;
# having political or social views favoring reform and progress
# tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
# a person who favors a political philosophy of progress
and reform and the protection of civil liberties

Hmm, sounds OK to me. I guess I'm a liberal.
But, I like to think I'm pretty ethical.
So I resent being pre-judged as somehow ethically
lacking.

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 17:40:06 GMT, Dan Espen
wrote:

Did you know that judging people as a group is the
definition of prejudice?

Bill Cosbysp (Popcicle guy?) did a film on prejudice.

His end words where that he was not prejudice, just a bigot :-))

He DON'T like anybody!

Oren
--

On Jan 24, 11:49Â*pm, Terry wrote:
On Jan 24, 10:18Â*pm, " wrote:





On Jan 24, 9:52�pm, "Cliff Hartle" wrote:

The receiver won't work unless you pay your bill or deal with web sites like
this.

http://www.satellitesdirecttvdishnet...satellite/priv....

When you stop paying your bill they do something to the receiver to turn it
off.

I don't know if they still do it this way, but the receivers had a card in
them. �You could purchase a hacked card that would give you access until the
sat company defeated them and you would have to get a new card. The other
way to get this card was to get one that could be reprogrammed. �I was once
in a house that had a cable running from their receiver to a old computer
that kept the card up to date.

Its explained a little bit here.

http://www.tech-faq.com/signal-theft.shtml

"Sigmand" wrote in ...
I have a hypothetical friend. �He has subscribed to both Dish Network and
Direct TV in the past. �He currently has the Dish Network network dish
mounted on his house and is subscribed to cable. �He also has a
hypothetical friend that currently subscribes to Direct TV. �He wonders out
loud what would happen if he borrowed the extra box that is hardly used
from his friend.

Are both disks the same. �Would one box work with the other's dish? Would
the box work if he climbed up on the house and changed the dish back to
Direct TV?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

why does anyone think its OK to steal satellite tv? would you steal
your neighbors car? rip off stuff from the grocery store

If you steal your neighbors car he no longer has it.

If you tune in cable channels no one has lost anything tangible.

Cable companies call it stealing, but it is not the same thing.

Spoken like someone who doesn't understand, or care , what
intellectual property is.

So let's say EVERYONE "tunes in" cable channels or satellite without
paying for it. The company gets zero dollars, goes out of business,
because it actually costs money to stay IN business. See, it costs
money to pay cable installers, run coax, buy distribution boxes, pay
for the channels that they are supplying to customers, pay for health
care for their employees, etc.

So now the company has no money. But hey, nobody did anything wrong,
right? Now, clearly, the company was damaged by the activity of all
of those people.

there's a big difference between -cable- and SATELLITE.
One requires you string a cable to your home to get the signal,the other
doesn't,the signal is there no matter what you do,whether you want it or
not.

Satellite TV is no different than the power company charging for sunlight
when you put in your own solar panels.

Ridiculous. It costs money to broadcast signals through a
satellite. It costs the sat company money to buy the rights to
channels they are providing.

As I said previously,they ALREADY are putting their satellite signal into
my home;It's paid for regardless whether I rent one of their decoder boxes.
My providing my own decoder does not increase their costs in any way.

Since when is their cost the determining factor of whether or not
their property is being stolen? It's theft because there is
damage. I know there is damage because if everyone stole their
signal, they would go out of business.

It's no different than charging me for sunlight.

Obviously, the difference is that the sat company doesn't own the
sun. But at least even you recognized above that it's THEIR satellite
signal.

It isn't "corporate bull****", it's the law.

If we had a "stupidest statement" *contest, that could win. Maybe you
have no idea that it's corporations that control the government. How'd
you miss that? It's like missing the 10-ton elephant in your living
room.

Corporations have so much "control" over the government that they have
to abide by thousands of pages of regulations and pay billions in
taxes. So much for control.

Dan Espen wrote in
:

(Floyd L. Davidson) writes:

Jim Yanik wrote:

well,I guess it depends on the meaning of "liberal".
In today's world,it means "socialist" ,"progressive",or Communist.

Two out of three wrong.

Today's "liberal" is a statist.

Absurdly *backwards*.

I suggest you research "liberal fascism".

Yes, it seems so:

statism:

state intervention in personal, social or economic matters

At least our current crop of conservatives seem to fit
this description quite well.

HAH,the DemocRATs are the ones pushing for state control of everything.
THEY are the ones wanting the "Fairness Doctrine" restated,in order to
stifle the conservative new media[censorship].(they already control most of
the MSM.)
They are anti Second Amendment,they want a "Living Constitution" whose
interpretation varies with popular opinion.(meaning that what a law means
one day will not necessarily mean the same the next.)
They want to tax and redistribute income for their social
programs.(disregarding the failures of all their previous programs)


Everything belongs to or is subject to the State.

Excessive confusion seems to be the root cause of
a lot of what you say, and this is not exception.

Liberal:

# broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness;
# having political or social views favoring reform and progress
# tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or
tradition # a person who favors a political philosophy of progress
and reform and the protection of civil liberties

that's the OLD,classical definition of "liberal",TODAY,it means a
"progressive"/socialist/Communist.
(the Soviets called themselves "progressives")

I suggest you research "liberal fascism".

Hmm, sounds OK to me. I guess I'm a liberal.
But, I like to think I'm pretty ethical.
So I resent being pre-judged as somehow ethically
lacking.





--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 17:40:06 GMT, Dan Espen
wrote:

Did you know that judging people as a group is the
definition of prejudice?

Bill Cosbysp (Popcicle guy?) did a film on prejudice.

His end words where that he was not prejudice, just a bigot :-))

He DON'T like anybody!

Oren

I worked in Las Vegas during the time Bill Cosby was popular and playing Las
Vegas. The man is THE worst tipper in the world, and his entourage can plug
up the whole system with their lollygagging.

I used to park cars. After letting his Porsche 928 sit and idle until it
nearly ignited, management had a special meeting with parking attendants and
asked that we give him preferential treatment as a favor to them even though
he did not tip. No one wanted to park his car or get it for him because he
was a stiff, and because it took him and his entourage a half an hour to get
out of the driveway. Then he had the balls to publicly say he didn't like
coming to Las Vegas because everyone had their hands out.

Bill Cosby. What a total jerk.

Steve

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 17:31:51 -0800 (PST), Larry Bud
wrote:

It isn't "corporate bull****", it's the law.

If we had a "stupidest statement" *contest, that could win. Maybe you
have no idea that it's corporations that control the government. How'd
you miss that? It's like missing the 10-ton elephant in your living
room.

Corporations have so much "control" over the government that they have
to abide by thousands of pages of regulations and pay billions in
taxes. So much for control.



That's largely illusion.

Anyway, I never said I approved of unauthorized cable/satellite
reception (I don't). Some people sure like to make up junk.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"So far as I can remember, there is not one word
in the Gospels in praise of intelligence."
--Bertrand Russell

Larry Bud wrote:
It isn't "corporate bull****", it's the law.
If we had a "stupidest statement" contest, that could win. Maybe you
have no idea that it's corporations that control the government. How'd
you miss that? It's like missing the 10-ton elephant in your living
room.

Corporations have so much "control" over the government that they have
to abide by thousands of pages of regulations and pay billions in
taxes. So much for control.



Thats just a carefully choreographed dance they do to make it look like
they are not beholden to the big money interests.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:32:49 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
KLS wrote:

On 25 Jan 2008 17:35:44 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

So,if I install my own solar panels,the power company can charge me for the
sunlight,because I had to do something "active" to get electricity from the
sunlight?

Talk to God about that one since he's sending out the rays. He's
*NOT* by any stretch of the imagination or dictionary definition
sending out the satellite signals you are stealing.

Either god is everything, or he is nothing.

As to that:

People experience things relative to other things. A thing is
meaningless unless "not-it" exists. Therefore, the state "god is
everything" is meaningless.

[snip]

Actually, for an amusing treatment of the ludicrous lack of foundation
for christianity or any other nonsense religion, watch the first 1/3 or
so of the movie Zeitgeist. (DAGS) If you can come away from that and
still believe in jesus, you're in serious denial.
--
"How could you ask me to believe in God when there's
absolutely no evidence that I can see?" -- Jodie Foster

On Jan 23, 7:37 pm, Sigmand wrote:
I have a hypothetical friend. He has subscribed to both Dish Network
and Direct TV in the past. He currently has the Dish Network network
dish mounted on his house and is subscribed to cable. He also has a
hypothetical friend that currently subscribes to Direct TV. He wonders
out loud what would happen if he borrowed the extra box that is hardly
used from his friend.

Are both disks the same. Would one box work with the other's dish?
Would the box work if he climbed up on the house and changed the dish
back to Direct TV?

I don't think there is any doubt that one person could give someone
else one of his receivers and the second party could then receive
satellite TV with it.

One thing that might, perhaps, give these two people pause, though, is
that GPS (global positioning system) is becoming very cheap and it's
conceivable, I suppose, that satellite companies could incorporate GPS
in their system and determine exactly where the receiver is located.

Jim Yanik writes:

Dan Espen wrote in
:

(Floyd L. Davidson) writes:

Jim Yanik wrote:

well,I guess it depends on the meaning of "liberal".
In today's world,it means "socialist" ,"progressive",or Communist.

Two out of three wrong.

Today's "liberal" is a statist.

Absurdly *backwards*.

I suggest you research "liberal fascism".

Now why would we research "liberal fascism"?
You didn't mention it, did you.
Until now, as you try to weasel out of your incorrect statement.

I've known a lot of liberals, and I just looked up
the definition and posted it. Clearly there is no
fascism involved.

Unlike the current administration.

Yes, it seems so:

statism:

state intervention in personal, social or economic matters

At least our current crop of conservatives seem to fit
this description quite well.

HAH,the DemocRATs are the ones pushing for state control of everything.

Yes "DemocRATs". Name calling. The refuge of those who have no point.
Lot's of names for Republicans today.

THEY are the ones wanting the "Fairness Doctrine" restated,in order to
stifle the conservative new media[censorship].(they already control most of
the MSM.)

Oh right:

"The Fairness Doctrine was introduced in an atmosphere of
anti-Communist sentiment in the U.S. in 1949..."

They are anti Second Amendment,they want a "Living Constitution" whose
interpretation varies with popular opinion.(meaning that what a law means
one day will not necessarily mean the same the next.)

Judge Scalia is against it, so I'm for it.
Seriously, reading this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution

I see both sides but don't see anything wrong with the concept.

They want to tax and redistribute income for their social
programs.(disregarding the failures of all their previous programs)

BS. Bill Clinton, the extreme liberal, signed into law
welfare reform. That argument is dead.

Everything belongs to or is subject to the State.

Excessive confusion seems to be the root cause of
a lot of what you say, and this is not exception.

Liberal:

# broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness;
# having political or social views favoring reform and progress
# tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or
tradition # a person who favors a political philosophy of progress
and reform and the protection of civil liberties

that's the OLD,classical definition of "liberal",TODAY,it means a
"progressive"/socialist/Communist.
(the Soviets called themselves "progressives")

I suggest you research "liberal fascism".

Ok, you win, I just looked it up:

Liberal Fascism:

1) A Illogical word created by Right-Wingers in an attempt to cover-up
Fascism's Right-wing roots.

2) Also the title of a illogical book that makes a poor attempt to
connect liberalism to Fascism.

3) A popular word within the Conservative Hate culture

4) A word that would make a person with the most basic knowledge of
Politics laugh at you.

Liberal Fascism is a failed attempt to demonize a ideology that
Democracy was founded on.


You should be ashamed of yourself.


Hmm, sounds OK to me. I guess I'm a liberal.
But, I like to think I'm pretty ethical.
So I resent being pre-judged as somehow ethically
lacking.

Still waiting for that apology.

Dan Espen wrote:
Jim Yanik writes:
Dan Espen wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) writes:
Jim Yanik wrote:

well,I guess it depends on the meaning of "liberal".
In today's world,it means "socialist" ,"progressive",or Communist.

Two out of three wrong.

Today's "liberal" is a statist.

Absurdly *backwards*.

I suggest you research "liberal fascism".

Now why would we research "liberal fascism"?

I guess he wanted us to stop giggling, and get a *real*
laugh out of this!

....
They are anti Second Amendment,they want a "Living Constitution" whose
interpretation varies with popular opinion.(meaning that what a law means
one day will not necessarily mean the same the next.)

Judge Scalia is against it, so I'm for it.

Scalia is a very good litmus test for almost anything.
If he likes it... be *very* *very* suspicious of it.

....
I suggest you research "liberal fascism".

Ok, you win, I just looked it up:

Dan, you've made my day with this post, and though it is
really hard to pick out one section and say it was better
than the rest, this summary of what is "Liberal Fascism"
probably does win.

Liberal Fascism:

1) A Illogical word created by Right-Wingers in an attempt to cover-up
Fascism's Right-wing roots.

2) Also the title of a illogical book that makes a poor attempt to
connect liberalism to Fascism.

3) A popular word within the Conservative Hate culture

4) A word that would make a person with the most basic knowledge of
Politics laugh at you.

Liberal Fascism is a failed attempt to demonize a ideology that
Democracy was founded on.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

That is indeed the point. If he had wanted to discredit
himself and each and every political opinion he has ever
posted, there wouldn't be a better way to do it than
make claims about what the word "liberal" means and then
follow it up with references to "Liberal Fascism".
Clearly a no-brainer.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Dan Espen wrote in
:

Jim Yanik writes:

Dan Espen wrote in
:

(Floyd L. Davidson) writes:

Jim Yanik wrote:

well,I guess it depends on the meaning of "liberal".
In today's world,it means "socialist" ,"progressive",or Communist.

Two out of three wrong.

Today's "liberal" is a statist.

Absurdly *backwards*.

I suggest you research "liberal fascism".

Now why would we research "liberal fascism"?
You didn't mention it, did you.
Until now, as you try to weasel out of your incorrect statement.

I've known a lot of liberals, and I just looked up
the definition and posted it. Clearly there is no
fascism involved.

Unlike the current administration.

Yes, it seems so:

statism:

state intervention in personal, social or economic matters

At least our current crop of conservatives seem to fit
this description quite well.

HAH,the DemocRATs are the ones pushing for state control of
everything.

Yes "DemocRATs". Name calling. The refuge of those who have no
point. Lot's of names for Republicans today.

THEY are the ones wanting the "Fairness Doctrine" restated,in order
to stifle the conservative new media[censorship].(they already
control most of the MSM.)

Oh right:

"The Fairness Doctrine was introduced in an atmosphere of
anti-Communist sentiment in the U.S. in 1949..."

Yes,and it's effect was for networks to AVOID any political talk at all,to
keep from running afoul of the "Fairness Doctrine" law.
There was good reason to void thatlaw.
THAT is why the "Liberals" want to reinstate it;to regain their liberal
monopoly on the media,to stifle the new outlets that Conservatives found to
get their voices heard.Censorship."liberals" are pro-censorship,via
political correctness,campus speech codes,"diversity" codes and laws.
Liberals are the ones shouting down Conservative campus speakers,denying
them their free speech,they also toss pies,physically assaulting the
speakers.

They are anti Second Amendment,they want a "Living Constitution"
whose interpretation varies with popular opinion.(meaning that what a
law means one day will not necessarily mean the same the next.)

Judge Scalia is against it, so I'm for it.
Oh? you dont think that laws should mean the same thing day after day,year
after year?(as WRITTEN,not what some judge reads into it)

Seriously, reading this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution

I see both sides but don't see anything wrong with the concept.

The idea is that to change the Constitution,you AMEND it,not "reinterpret"
the law,changing it's original meaning.

They want to tax and redistribute income for their social
programs.(disregarding the failures of all their previous programs)

BS. Bill Clinton, the extreme liberal, signed into law
welfare reform. That argument is dead.

you have SUCH a narrow view of things.

Everything belongs to or is subject to the State.

Excessive confusion seems to be the root cause of
a lot of what you say, and this is not exception.

Liberal:

# broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness;
# having political or social views favoring reform and progress
# tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or
tradition # a person who favors a political philosophy of progress
and reform and the protection of civil liberties

that's the OLD,classical definition of "liberal",TODAY,it means a
"progressive"/socialist/Communist.
(the Soviets called themselves "progressives")

I suggest you research "liberal fascism".

Ok, you win, I just looked it up:

Liberal Fascism:

1) A Illogical word created by Right-Wingers in an attempt to
cover-up Fascism's Right-wing roots.

Do you have a cite for this?


2) Also the title of a illogical book that makes a poor attempt
to connect liberalism to Fascism.

No,Goldberg's book shows how today's "liberalism" is more fascist than the
conservatives.
[but liberals are often calling Conservaties Fascists;**name calling**]

3) A popular word within the Conservative Hate culture

Translation;if you are Conservative,you're a hater.

4) A word that would make a person with the most basic knowledge
of Politics laugh at you.

Liberal "knowledge".

Liberal Fascism is a failed attempt to demonize a ideology that
Democracy was founded on.


You should be ashamed of yourself.


Hmm, sounds OK to me. I guess I'm a liberal.
But, I like to think I'm pretty ethical.
So I resent being pre-judged as somehow ethically
lacking.

Still waiting for that apology.


BWahaha.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik writes:

Dan Espen wrote in
:

Jim Yanik writes:

Dan Espen wrote in
:

(Floyd L. Davidson) writes:

Jim Yanik wrote:
Ok, you win, I just looked it up:

Liberal Fascism:

1) A Illogical word created by Right-Wingers in an attempt to
cover-up Fascism's Right-wing roots.

Do you have a cite for this?

They invented this thing called a search engine.
On the first page of hits, this was the only page that offered
a definition.

2) Also the title of a illogical book that makes a poor attempt
to connect liberalism to Fascism.

No,Goldberg's book shows how today's "liberalism" is more fascist than the
conservatives.
[but liberals are often calling Conservaties Fascists;**name calling**]

Yes, and now you made me read about Goldberg's nasty little book.
The whole point is Conservatives getting their revenge on
the liberals because of the way they've been called Nazis.
So the book looks for some far fetched parallels.

So, I think we've officially reached the Godwin stalemate and
I'm done.


(Shame about you hurling insults at people you don't know
and then refusing to take it back.)

Dan Espen wrote:

(Shame about you hurling insults at people you don't know
and then refusing to take it back.)

Sheesh. Are you a 5th grader on the playground at elementary school? What a
pussy.

On Jan 27, 12:24 pm, aemeijers wrote:
mg wrote:
On Jan 23, 7:37 pm, Sigmand wrote:
I have a hypothetical friend. He has subscribed to both Dish Network
and Direct TV in the past. He currently has the Dish Network network
dish mounted on his house and is subscribed to cable. He also has a
hypothetical friend that currently subscribes to Direct TV. He wonders
out loud what would happen if he borrowed the extra box that is hardly
used from his friend.

Are both disks the same. Would one box work with the other's dish?
Would the box work if he climbed up on the house and changed the dish
back to Direct TV?

I don't think there is any doubt that one person could give someone
else one of his receivers and the second party could then receive
satellite TV with it.

One thing that might, perhaps, give these two people pause, though, is
that GPS (global positioning system) is becoming very cheap and it's
conceivable, I suppose, that satellite companies could incorporate GPS
in their system and determine exactly where the receiver is located.

Dish already has a cheaper solution in place- if you have two receivers,
both must be hooked to a phone line, or they add five bucks a month to
your bill. When the box phones the 800 number every X days to get the
update, their computer compares the caller ID to the phone number of
record. If it doesn't match, expect a charge on the bill, or a call from
their fraud folks, or even a shutoff on the receiver.

Hey, these overpriced boxes are how they make a living. They have gotten
pretty good about preventing the formerly easy ways to scam them. Why do
you think they stopped using removable account cards? Hacking the box
itself is a lot harder.

aem sends...

If two people wanted to watch Dish Network, and split the bill which
might perhaps be $100/month, I don't think a $5 a monthly penalty
would be much of a deterent.

"Dave Bugg" wrote in
news:CR7nj.536$hr6.44@trndny04:

Dan Espen wrote:

(Shame about you hurling insults at people you don't know
and then refusing to take it back.)

Sheesh. Are you a 5th grader on the playground at elementary school?
What a pussy.




He's SENSITIVE......

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Larry Bud wrote in
:

As I said previously,they ALREADY are putting their satellite signal
into my home;It's paid for regardless whether I rent one of their
decoder boxes. My providing my own decoder does not increase their
costs in any way.

Since when is their cost the determining factor of whether or not
their property is being stolen? It's theft because there is
damage. I know there is damage because if everyone stole their
signal, they would go out of business.

It's NOT "stealing their signal",as they broadcast their signal into
EVERYONE'S homes regardless of whether they want it or not.

They have already GIVEN me that signal.It washes down upon my house like
sunlight,freely.
All I have to do to use it is decode it.
Where they make their money is renting decoders.
If I have my own,I don't need to rent from them.

(that's why they make it so hard to decode their signals,so everybody CAN'T
do it.And not everybody would,for a number of reasons.)


It's no different than charging me for sunlight.

Obviously, the difference is that the sat company doesn't own the
sun. But at least even you recognized above that it's THEIR satellite
signal.


Not after they broadcast it everywhere.(like sunlight)
At least Cable pipes their signals through a wire to those who order it,and
illegal users have to tap into the cable company's actual property to steal
it.(and that tapping process has measureable,definite negative effects
[real damage] on the company's property,also some hazard.)
Like I said,a BIG difference.

As I said before,if a company mails you their product unrequested,you are
not obligated to pay for it.If it's in another language,you still don't
have to pay for it after you translate it.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

aemeijers wrote:

Dish already has a cheaper solution in place- if you have two
receivers, both must be hooked to a phone line, or they add five
bucks a month to your bill. When the box phones the 800 number every
X days to get the update, their computer compares the caller ID to
the phone number of record. If it doesn't match, expect a charge on
the bill, or a call from their fraud folks, or even a shutoff on the
receiver.
Hey, these overpriced boxes are how they make a living. They have
gotten pretty good about preventing the formerly easy ways to scam
them. Why do you think they stopped using removable account cards?
Hacking the box itself is a lot harder.


How does DISH handle the situation where you DON'T have a land-line? Say you
exist with only a cell, or you're in an RV taking a retirement, three-year,
spin around the U.S., or you're in a fishing cabin in the outback?

HeyBub wrote:
aemeijers wrote:
Dish already has a cheaper solution in place- if you have two
receivers, both must be hooked to a phone line, or they add five
bucks a month to your bill. When the box phones the 800 number every
X days to get the update, their computer compares the caller ID to
the phone number of record. If it doesn't match, expect a charge on
the bill, or a call from their fraud folks, or even a shutoff on the
receiver.
Hey, these overpriced boxes are how they make a living. They have
gotten pretty good about preventing the formerly easy ways to scam
them. Why do you think they stopped using removable account cards?
Hacking the box itself is a lot harder.


How does DISH handle the situation where you DON'T have a land-line? Say you
exist with only a cell, or you're in an RV taking a retirement, three-year,
spin around the U.S., or you're in a fishing cabin in the outback?


Supposedly they charge the extra five bucks, at least for fixed-address
accounts. (Although people at work have told me they dropped their
landline after the box was installed, and never got charged.) My box
phones home at 0300 every few days. I thought it was to get guide data
and firmware updates, but maybe it is just to say 'Hi Ma!'.

No idea how dish handles accounts set up only to an RV. At one time you
had to have a real address, I am told, not just a PO box.

aem sends....

I neither condone nor condem the interception of satellite tv signals
that are for sale.

I don't know about the established case law. It would be interesting
to see.

What has been discussed here has been about how people FEEL about the
morality of decoding sat tv signals.

I suggest that you look at CFR (code of federal regulations) part 96
or 97 I believe, which governs the use of public airways.

People have been intercepting and decoding radio signals for years
(our own government does it). It is a common practice for reporters
to monitor police and fire frequencies and to profit from what they
hear there. People intercept and decode cell and wireless phone and
wireless computer communications. You can legally monitor and decrypt
(if necessary) military and law enforcement signals. Try marine
channels 21 and 23 which the Coast Guard uses (in some cases) for law
enforcement.

The FCC says the airwaves and signals transmitted therein are part of
the public domain.

Now lets look at how those signals are gotten in the first place.
Your cable company gets them via a 3rd party satellite. You can
legally get those same signals yourself. Where do you think NBC gets
them? From a satellite. Several years ago I watched Wimbledon from a
satellite of the originating signal. It was broadcast without sound
and many companies got it and added their own commentary in any number
of languages and then redestributed to cable networks and satellite
TV. Are the local police going to break my door down and arrest me?
No, because I broke no law. I did not retransmit or sell the
picture. That would be a violation of copyright law. So where along
this whole (and large) path from origin to final destination(s), did
it become illegal to intercept the signal?

An interesting case, one of the cable networks audio channels is in
the 2 meter ham band. Is it illegal to listen to? No, and quite the
opposite, the cable companies have been sued for malicious
interference.

If you have a LEGAL (and not a moral or logical) basis for a rebuttal,
I would like to hear it.

fxsage wrote:

I neither condone nor condem the interception of satellite tv signals
that are for sale.

To whom or what are you replying? You need to quote a bit of the text you
are referring to so that you don't look like you're talking to thin air.
BTW, this thread died a while ago.

In article
,
fxsage wrote:

What has been discussed here has been about how people FEEL about the
morality of decoding sat tv signals.

While that statement is true, the OP wasn't interested in a morality
debate, or a legal one, but only a technical discussion, IIRC. The
morality police hijacked the thread.

On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 18:19:23 GMT, "Dave Bugg"
wrote:

fxsage wrote:

I neither condone nor condem the interception of satellite tv signals
that are for sale.
It's only stealing if you get caught!!!

--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/

Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/